₦airaland Forum

@TV01,

I should say that you took my post on board and now seek dialogue rather than mere carping. On that note, let me offer you a few things to make issues clearer:

TV01:
Did you mix up the quote and response here? As I honestly can't make head or tails of this?

I have asked repeatedly, please state it how you see it. Simply nit-picking at my position, no matter how unreasonable it may be, does not make for engaging or robust debate.

Go back and read my first post. I focused on issues that were of concern to me and offered a few questions with verses initially. Rather than deal with them, you went on a jolly-ride  expressing bitter sentiments.

TV01:
As above, plead your case. Circling around semantics is tiresome at best. If the words were not a great fit - admittedly - the examples would have clarified my point. Theocracy is strictly speaking rule by God, but is used more loosely. Ecclesiocracy, rule by a priestly or religius class. But how frequently is that word used?

There is my point, and I wasn't amused with the loose use of theocracy; even less so with the frequency of use of the other, Ecclesiocracy. If Theocracy is strictly rule by God, I wondered how they applied in the contexts of your various entries.

TV01:
Like I said, the pace and stage of the discussion. And again, please enunciate your position.

In just a moment - I'd like to deal with the small areas in yours first.

TV01:
And whilst doing so, please clarify how XT agitation for and wielding of political power will engender a spiritual change in unbelievers, leading to a physicall one.

Again, I don't think what you are suggesting was hinted at in my rejoinders. I wasn't vouching for Christian agitation for and wielding of political power as a tool for engendering a spiritual change. I hope you caught the gist in my position, which I state here agian:

How do you read the Bible expecting only a "spiritual conversion" that does not affect changes on the physical plane? To assume such a view is really contrary to the spirit ot the New Testament.

To help clear the air: "spiritual conversion" is not the ONLY aspect of our daily living taught in the Bible - there should ALSO be a manifestation of that conversion on the physical plane. It would be preposterous for me to assume your suspicion that I might have been hinting at "political power engendering a spiritual change in unbelievers."

TV01:
Again, at this point I was saying that sin or criminality in society is not due to non-political engagemnt by XT. Sin the Bible says abounds.

Is it really necessary to restate the obvious? What was my response to this line earlier? See:

Sin is promoted in any nation where some Christians feel that the best thing to do is allow ungodly political processes to carry the day, while they sit as passive spectators in the idea that public issues "become more or less normalised".

. . . and then I went on to offer this question:

How did I blame murder on non-political XTity or state that non-political Xtity is responsible for this?

To put it less formally, I have not blamed non-political Christians or held them responsible for the abounding sins or criminality of any nation. However, I am concerned about the platitude that Chritians do nothing to influence the culture of their day.

TV01:
And again please feel free to expatiate your views on "Political Vocations"

In just a moment, as I don't want to get mixed up while dealing with the small issues.

TV01:
An unconverted man on the one hand does not truly acknowledge sin and on the other is driven by it.

No disagreements there.

TV01:
Political power cannot legislate the righteousness of God. So how is CP going to make that happen? or otherwise wield the power to the glory of God? ~ Clear now?

And that is the crux of the matter. Granted that political cannot legislate the righteousness of God - as long as that is not the instrumentality that believers depend upon as the sole ingredient for that effect.

Godly men and women holding political offices in the past and present have been greatly used of God to effect causes for His glory. The case of Nehemiah, who was employed in the political corridors of his day and was used of God to effect a revival among God's people (Neh. 1:11 - For I was the king's cupbearer); Daniel and his three friends also were godly men in political appointment much used of God to affect the ungodly and precarious culture of their day for good and to the glory of God (Dan. 2:49; 3:30; 4:37 & 6:1-2).

I don't remember anywhere in the Law where Jews were expressly forbidden from taking up employment in political settings; nor is there a law commanding them to pursue such vocation. My persuasion is that some Christians find themselves in political vocations (either by career or conviction), and most have sought to influence the cultures of their various constituencies. It doesn't seem that God gave a specific NT command expressly forbidding Christians from such vocations; on the contrary, I'm more persuaded to believe that the Bible makes a weightier case in favour of such than a foreboding againt the case.

TV01:
And on and on.
It would be easier for you to state your view and well balanced position, so as to disabuse me of my linear thinking and unbalanced views.

I just stated my persuasions; and my apologies for that allegation of linear thinking and unbalanced view. I take it back in hope of suing for an amicable deliberation on this profound subject.

However, on a wider application, I wonder about what would become of cultures if more Christians sit as passive observers of political processes in the various civil governments of our day. Publicly-affecting issues such as Women's Rights, Abortion, Domestic Violence, Economic Reforms, Religious Freedom, Immigration, Education Policies, Environment, and a plethora of others confront us daily. There are some Christians who have sought careers in politics and have used their various offices to promote godly influences that affect communities for God's glory. They may not always be successful and receive very little supposrt in their causes, as many Christians still feel that politics is a taboo.

At the end of the day, I take the position that Christians in political vocations is neither forbidden nor mandated/commanded in the Bible. I would rather rejoice that in God's benevolence, we have believers who are in influential offices and political positions to effect change for the good of communities and to God's glory.

TV01:
If you don't follow the whole discussion, you can miss the tone and flow.

True.

TV01:
It's why I didn't respond to ezeking earlier. It's tedious enough answering on a running basis, let alone attending to snipers popping up along the line.

I hope you see now that your reference about others doesn't serve you well. Snipers popping up - we are all guilty of it, and you count on that list.

TV01:
If you were on the pace, there would be less understanding.

Did you mean to say, "there would be less [b]mis[/b]undertanding"?? In anycase, I assure you that the gist was not lost on me, and my entries simply are to the point that were of concern to me.

TV01:
So on that basis, please post and I'll respond.
God bless

Just did. Regards.

babs787:
am not peturbed by your post.keep it up, we will see who will carry the curse.

Certainly I don't suppose that you would be perturbed - that's just the case for people who have cursed themselves!

@babs787,

Just a few questions on your blabs:

babs787:
how do you talk to someone that didnt receive adequate training during her youthful days let alone learn how to relate with people except resorting to name calling and using disgusting statement on every muslims that deemed fit to ask questions.you can never change a rotten soul no matter how hard you try.

Were you asking questions when you accused Jesus of lying and stealing? I thought Muslims say they never insult any prophet?? So, should I take it then that you're not a Muslim but pretending to be one?

babs787:
the above curse hangs on as long as you fail in giving me response on the below

Okay, that says it all: so you happen to be one of those who come under your own curses! One really hopes that you could help your case, but if your curses are still hanging, perhaps it confirms that your case is really hopeless??

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
It didn't have to spell it out for you for you to see that reality. If Jesus said that the sabbath was made for mankind, then does'nt Adam fit into the picture? Isn't he the progenitor of mankind? Why would the Creator not desire for Adam to celebrate creation every seventh day?

The point was simply that you don't twist Scripture to say what it did not say. I had asked that you show where in Gen. 2:1-3 God specifically gave Adam a commandment about the Sabbath day, and I'm still waiting for a clear response from you, and not esoteric interpretations that suits your group.

Bobbyaf:
What does sanctifying the seventh day means if not setting it aside for holy use? Isn't that what the word sanctify means Bari_kade? The fact that God made the day holy, or hallowed it, means that Adam was very much aware of that principle.

Bobbyaf, where in Genesis 2:1-3 did God specifically give Adam the commandment of a Sabbath day?

Bobbyaf:
There is something wrong with clause b in your construction. You have left out the word "not", which puts the wrong idea to the contrast that Jesus wanted to bring accross. That changes the whole meaning of the sentence.

It simply did not change any meaning in the question I asked. Should I take it that you were unable to answer the question?

If you prefer, I could offer the same questions in 3 ways:

              (a) the Sabbath was made for man
              (b) man was made for the Sabbath
              (c) man was not made for the Sabbath

There. Can you explicate on the significance of what those three clauses would have meant?

In anycase, you did not attempt an answer but rather offered some comments that deviated from my enquiry.

Bobbyaf:
Why would Jesus say that the sabbath was made for mankind, if in truth it was made for the Jews? Wouldn't that be a contradiction on His part? The sabbath existed among God's people before it was re-instituted at mount Sinai. In fact the sabbath was never intended to be only for the jews in the time of the covenant renewal.

When Jesus used the word "man" in Mark 2:27, He clearly was directing His speech to the Jews who knew the Law. The Lord answered on the basis of the Mosaic Law to which the Jews set their complaint; and there is no doubt that they understood He was referring specifically to the Law of Moses. This is strengthened by the fact that nowhere do we read of God instituting a Sabbath law for Adam. If there is one verse that says so, please reference it in your next post.

Bobbyaf:
Listen as God speaks through scripture:

Isaiah 56:2-5 . . .

The case of the Isaiah 56:1-5 text you quoted does not reflect the Christian position in the New covenant, (as against the covenant mentioned in verse 4) and that should have been plain if you read up to verse 7 of that chapter:

Isa 56:7 - "Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people."

You can see that God indeed was not speaking about Christianity in Isaiah 56, because the burnt offerings and sacrifices of the OT is no longer applicable in the New Covenant. Besides, when the Lord Jesus ministered in earth, He no longer found delight in the House of God on earth because the Jews had made it a den of robbers (Matt. 21:13).

The NT tells us that while the OT sacrifices and worship was in place, the way into the NT worship was not as yet revealed. So then, Isaiah 56 was referring to conditions best suited to the Old Covenant, and not to Christianity. Compare:

Heb. 9:8-11 - "The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building."

This is one of the reasons why I appeal to those who quote Isaiah 56 to carefully consider the context in light of NT teaching before they settle for a partial inference or interpretation.

Bobbyaf:
Listen as God speaks through scripture:
. . .
Exudus 20:10
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates

I'm not surprised that you are quoting a Jewish Law from Exodus, and not one from Genesis where God was supposed to have commanded Adam in respect of the Sabbath day. I'd just say that Exodus 20:10 is not a Christian position in the New Covenant.

Bobbyaf:
Even in the days of the apostles the gentiles kept it.

"And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath." "And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God." Acts 13:42, 44

"And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." Acts 18:4.

Please calm down and read the context again. Paul was engaged in evangelism to non-Christians on the Sabbath day, as is clear from the result in verse 48: "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."

Besides, if you are careful to read things in context, you would see that Paul was not keeping the Sabbath day as instituted in the Law! The Law which you even quoted earlier in Exodus 20:10 said that "in it thou shalt not do any work!" If Paul and the apostles laboured to bring non-Christians to believe in Jesus Christ, was that not work?? It does not stand to reason that you misread these text and take at surface value that Paul was keeping the Sabbath!

Bobbyaf:
I will say this much, what you think you know is not the same as what you know. There are questions and there are questions. When you look at the overall ministry of Mrs. Ellen White who ministered for 70 continuous years, and the extent to which her writings benefited the church in terms of its growth and development, there is no doubt that God's hand was with her.

Well, any SDA member can say the same things about Ellen G. White; and this only tells me that you haven't read her unedited works. When you do, then we can deal with the grey areas of the SDA.

Bobbyaf:
I'd say this much also, that not only has the church benefited from her works, but the world also. In the area of health, education, among others, Ellen White has done far more than the mind can imagine.

The same could be said about other gurus who have done more in those areas. What I am particular about is the tenets of the SDA against the backdrop of Biblical teaching.

Bobbyaf:
Radio personality and syndicated columnist Paul Harvey, in his noontime ABC radiobroadcast of September 27, 1997, reported regarding Ellen White: "Her writings have been translated into 148 languages. More than Marx or Tolstoi, more than Agatha Cristhie, more than William Shakespeare. Only now is the world coming to appreciate her recommended prescription for optimum spiritual and physical health. "Ellen White! You don't know her? Get to know her.

I'm sure by the time we unveil the real Ellen G. White, Paul Harvey will be out of touch for any comments.

Bobbyaf:
Long before even I became involved with the SDA church as a boy at age 10, I started reading her books. At the time I wasn't aware of the intricacies of the denominational differences. I just was an avid reader for my age at the time and found one of her books called "Desire of Ages", a book about the life of Christ, very interesting.

Lucky you at that tender age. Actually I wasn't an avid reader of religious works until after I started shaving my first crop of moustache, lol. Anyway, I took a friend's advice to get a hard copy of some of Ellen's books (including the Desire of Ages) in order see things first hand and not rely on the internet. You won't believe the stuff that have lept out of pages; and that's why I asked those 5 questions earlier.

Bobbyaf:
One thing I can conclude is that whatever mis-informed ideas people may have of her, and about the SDA church heaping far too much praise on her, and pacing her writings on par with scrpture, is quickly dispelled as soon as they start readng any of her books, and as soon as they get the facts straight.

So, are you admitting to the fact that the SDA actually placed her writings on par with the Scriptures? Besides that, do not be so sure that Ellen G. White was clear of all blame.

Bobbyaf:
If you do not believe me try reading the book mentioned above. Its online so feel free to read. If you choose not to, then that is ok, but you owe it to yourself to remove whatever doubts you may have.  

As above, I'm fortunate have a former SDA member as a friend who has been kind enough to loan me his hard copies of some of Ellen's books. I'm still reading them, but you can't be so sure that she was used of God to propound the heresies and contradictions in her works.

@TV01,

TV01:
I never said that a spiritual change would not engender a physical one. What is quite clear scripturally is that physical change will not lead to a spiritual one.

Your use of "mandate" actually established your reasoning to be partially intoned.

TV01:
The thrust of this plank of my argument is that XT political agitation is a quest to access and wield worldly power in order to legislate (via the flesh first) morality. It’s back to front and unworkable.

Again, this only shows that you simply do not understand the subject of Christians engaging in political vocations.

TV01:
It’s extreme outworking could lead to a totalitarian XT (theocratic) state and military crusades to advance spiritual imperialism. All carnal.

All guesses. Where has that fancy idea of yours occured? Your postulations about "could lead to a totalitarian XT (theorcratic) state and military crusades" simply highlights the fact that your words have not been carefully chosen to reflect a good grasp of the issues at hand. If you use of "theocratic" explains the preceding "totalitarian XT", does that reflect the Biblical definition of theocracy?

TV01:
Please don’t ascribe things to me. Kindly refer to, or quote my submissions.

Which is precisely what I've been doing by inserting the quotes.

TV01:
I have outlined my position and explained what I believe to be the consequences and contemporary ramifications.

Which is why the appeal that you consider other texts in Scripture instead of a linear treatment of this issue.

TV01:
Please quit back-biting and do likewise

What's biting you, TV01? I don't remember the last time you quit yours.

TV01:
You fail to understand the nature of sin and at once place the physical afore the spiritual.

Shows you're struggling with simple statements. Here again is my quote on both the spiritual and the physical:

How do you read the Bible expecting only a "spiritual conversion" that does not affect changes on the physical plane? To assume such a view is really contrary to the spirit ot the New Testament.

Now try thinking through - does that sound the same as what you alleged about my entry: "at once place the physical afore the spiritual"?? If it still doesn't click, please simply ask - in just the same way you requested of me.

TV01:
Sin does not abound because XT’ fail to legislate. That would at best tackle the fruit, not the root. The sin nature is not subject to legislation

Are you really reading issues, TV01? Since this was not what I said, best I don't bother you witha response.

TV01:
Further you fail to apply common sense to the political process.

What a laugh! How have you demonstrated common sense in all your theories? Not once have you applied a common sense approach to even your own push for theorcracy! And if you can neither be clear as to one, how do you qualify to explicate the other??

TV01:
True XT’ are not in a majority anywhere. For XT’ to gain political power it will have to be by force or by compromise.

If that is all you see, again you expose the fact that you have only a linear understanding about political processes.

TV01:
1. Murder is already and has always been illegal. Yet it happens. Please explain how non-political XTity is responsible for this. Or how XT legislation will put an end to it?

TV01. . . Lol. You simply amaze me with small views. How did I blame murder on non-political XTity or state that non-political Xtity is responsible for this? Remeber that my concerns have been tailored round the topic - Christians and Politics - and my emphasis has been more about "Christians engaging in political vocations".

TV01:
2. In a straight tally of which lobby is making most ground, the GP one is way ahead of the CP one. However, whilst I agree that the GP is contrary to everything that Christ stands for, I don’t believe CP represents Christ or glorifies God.

Your view, neither did I intone that at all. The point I made was that you get your facts right; now you did!

TV01:
3. There are no XT theocracies. And I should have been clearer on that. I was referring to those that come closest, i.e. Afghanistan under the Taliban. In places where state & religion combine i.e. Iran, you can see the outworkings I detailed.

Again, I'll like to remind you of the topic: Christians and Politics! I think that's what most people have been dealing with, and your tangent on the cases of Afghanistan under the Taliban stretches the topic beyond its sane context. Besides, the Taliban does not truly represent a theocracy, even under Islam - and this conviction is attested by Muslims themselves!

TV01:
Further a true theocracy under the God of the bible would preclude politics or democracy.

I respect your view; but I disgaree with that all the same. Much as the governments of each political unit exist by the benevolence of God (Rom. 13:1-2), I don't see how that translates into precluding politics and democracy.

TV01:
4. I didn’t blame non-conversion on theocracy. Neither did I call non-conversion a sin. Sin is present where there is non-conversion, which is the whole point of arguing that legislation, which cannot cause conversion, is a futile exercise

First, I'm sorry if I misunderstood you earlier. But there again, I don't know what to make of this line that you neither call non-conversion a sin on the one hand; and on the other, still intone that sin is present where there is non-conversion! I don't think either that I suggested that legislation could cause conversion; so what point were you trying to make??

TV01:
This has been answered severally already. Although you claim to be up to speed on the discussion, your points suggest you are not. It’s either that or you cannot see the implications of your back-to-front approach? Which is it?

Easy: I'm quite up to speed on the discussion, and my inferrence was that your point is linear and falls short of a balanced view on the subject at hand.

TV01:
All together a rather weak response. The good bits are few and altogether wrongly focused, as they don’t re-but the scriptural validity of any of the points I made. It’s wordy and overblown, and doesn’t make any original points or bring fresh insight!

It's not surprising that small minds who make no points will rather be verbose and sit to applaud themselves with their lullaby. "Wordy and overblown" - yours, you meant, after how many pages of your fine carping?? I had hoped you'd be more grown-up by now. . . alas!!

TV01:
Next time please bring some relevance or join Analytical, mrpataki et al in the gainsayers corner!

Already feeling small in yourself??

TV01:
God bless

Bless.

@babs787,

It's really an unspeakable shame that you could stoop so low to accuse Jesus of lying and stealing, and shahan simply took your accusations to pieces! I'm still wondering if you're still a muslim at all, because if your efforts are typically the mindset of Muslims, we should feel sorry for the calumny and lies of your camp.

In all the questionable claims of Muhammad, not even he levied such calumny against the Lord Jesus Christ. So, where did you get your lies from??

So, with all the lies you've propagated about Jesus Christ, can we begin now to see that your own curses are upon you, babs787?? After lying so much, can we say that you're one of the liars you cursed with "GOD'S ANGER" and "NEVER PROSPER", babs787?? No wonder!!

shahan:
(b) although babs787 actually thought he would win applause by his calumny against Jesus Christ, he has only ended up proving he is an incorrigible liar that will stoop so low and stop at nothing in his fallacious exercise. As he is often known to say, "MAY GOD’S ANGER BE ON LIARS", and "MAY LIARS NEVER PROSPER" - so I have left him to carry his own curses upon himself for his lies exposed above.

Well put.

@TV01,

After having patiently gone through your reasoning, I find your persuasions quite untennable simply on the basis that you represent very partial views, if not completely flawed.

TV01:
Again and again I have stressed the XT mandate is spiritual conversion not physical change.

How do you read the Bible expecting only a "spiritual conversion" that does not affect changes on the physical plane? To assume such a view is really contrary to the spirit ot the New Testament.

Does giving a cup of cold water in Jesus' Name affect merely the "spiritual" without any effect on the physical? (Matt. 10:42).

Was the Lord Jesus merely concerned about the "spiritual" and not at all about the "physical"? Matt. 23:26 - "Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also."

Strainuously stating issues in such simplistic terms as you do will only create misconceptions about your position; and so far, there's been this very linear emphasis in your dialogue. I would rather if someone didn't understand the vocation of Christians in politics, it were better to be reserved instead of offering partial views and running the risk of misrepresenting Biblical exhortations.

TV01:
Abortion has been legal and illegal, that has never stopped it. Much like prohibition only served to create a flourishing, mafia-controlled black market for liquor. Adultery is still on the statute books of many nations. But the endemic nature and general acceptance of sexual immorality means it is now all but ignored. Likewise homosexuality, it’s been rightly stigmatized and legislated against throughout the ages. But as sin abound it has become more or less normalised.

Sin is promoted in any nation where some Christians feel that the best thing to do is allow ungodly political processes to carry the day, while they sit as passive spectators in the idea that public issues "become more or less normalised".

TV01:
Pertinent to note is that legislation recognizing homosexuality reflected cultural changes and not vice-versa. Also interesting is that the Gay political lobby is bashing the CP lobby all over the ring. Where theocracies exist, a lot of sins are either ignored, spiritualised or normalized. Sin itself will always find an outlet in an unconverted heart through uncrucified flesh.

You have just managed to applaud the very same thing you tried to refute.

1. Any legislation will be enacted - even if it includes murder - becomes some Christians who are politico-phobic will sit idly and refuse to make an impact in the legislations of their day.

2. The Gay political lobby is not bashing the CP - rather, they are bashing everything that represents Christ! Get your facts right!

3. "Theocracies" do not exist today, if you understand the meaning of the term. Second, if God is in absolute rule (theocracy) over political entities without the influence of christians, don't you think it is an absolute contradiction in terms to state that "a lot of sins are either ignored, spiritualised or normalized"?? Does it make sense to you that such a case will exist where God is acknowledged as Sovereign?

4. Blaming the sin of "unconverted heart and uncrucified flesh" on theocracy misses the point of Christianity.

TV01:
The righteous requirements of the law can only be fulfilled by those who walk according to the Spirit. It’s spiritual conversion not legal change that effects the will of God.

And does the will of God remain only effective on "spiritual conversion" without  manifestation on visible outward changes as a testimony? When people push this idea of a "spiritual conversion" to the detriment of an attesting physical manifestation, it just begs the question because the same allegation they make about people "spiritualizing" issues happens to be what they themselves are engaging in.

TV01:
~ Building a man-made construct or following worldly mores. Idolatry

Are the various civil and political Governments in existence equal to idolatory then?

TV01, your persuasions must be just suited to you. So far, you haven't really held a balanced view of Scripture, and the fact that you're often too quick to condemn issues that you little understand is remarkable.

@belloti,

It really doesn't stand to reason that the best (or "comfortable" way to "compel" adherents to remain in any religion is by killing. That is actually suspect of a revelation run amock, and it does not matter if you or anyone is comfy with it.

From what I have read, however, there is much weight to the fact that Islam was designed to compel people to both join and remain in it. You would agree with me that to compel someone to remain in Islam or face the threat of death is a violation of that person's will. There is no sane defence for that kind of situation against the backdrop that Islam is a religion of peace. The death threat against the will of a person is simply not peaceful by any stretch of imagination.

@belloti,

I don't have a muslim background like some of the erudite personalities who have distinguished their debates with references from both the Qur'an, Hadith and the Bible. One thing that amazes me is that the reaction of most Muslims only lend more weight to the persuasion that Islam is not a peaceful religion despite the slogan by its adherents.

What you have just stated is as contradictory in terms and reason as a square in a circle. If Islam does not compel anyone to join it, why then seek to kill people for making up their minds to leave it at all? Surely, that is compelling people against their wills to remain in a religion that they don't wish to remain in.

However, we all know that there is such a compulsion in Islam which actually was believed by Muhammad to be the foundation of his revelations from "Allah". I would respect you for being sincere and not one who promotes falsehood; but then it is actually false to assume that Islam does not compel anyone to join it, because their are tons of proof to the contrary.

Your last paragrapgh in response seems to confirm my suspicions that most Muslims are very quickly inclined to be unreasonable in a discussion. You may not intend to appease anyone, but that is a loud statement against the backdrop of the questions still plaguing Islam.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
According to Jesus Himself the sabbath was given to Adam the first man.

Please, please, please. This is a classic example of twisting Scripture. Jesus did not say that the sabbath was given to Adam the first man. Not even the verses you quoted (Gen. 2:1-3) indicate that God issued the Sabbath as a commandment to Adam: it just merely stated what God did on the seventh day.

Bobbyaf:
I fail to see why God would make a gift for man's benefit, and then having to take it back. Has He taken back marriage? So why should He take back the sabbath?

When you go back and read when the Sabbath was instituted as a Law to Israel, then you will see that Gentiles were not specifically addressed as being under the Law of the Sabbath.

Besides, when taken separately, what would be the significance of each of the clauses in Mark 2:27 -

(a) the Sabbath was made for man
(b) man was made for the Sabbath

If this is not properly understood, then the idea of driving the Sabbath issue too far will not help solve the enquiry.

With respect to the five questions asked earlier about the SDA and Ellen G. White, I see that you really don't know much about her works or the history of the SDA. When you take time to delve further beyond the surface of the edited sections of her works, then you will not be so inclined to interpret issues from the position of SDA.

@SDA people,

May I ask the following questions:

1. Has the SDA Church ever regarded any of Ellen G. White's writings to be on equal authority with the Bible?

2. Has Ellen G. White ever contradicted the Bible in any of her works?

3. Has Ellen G. White ever taught things that are not substantiated by or found in the Bible?

4. Has Ellen G. White ever not contradicted herself in any of her writings?

5. Has the SDA Church ever rejected any of Ellen G. White's writings as contrary to the Bible?

Perhaps, these questions in sound-bites may help us progress the discussion a bit further so that we understand exactly what the issues are, and why many people are persuaded that the SDA merits the status of a cult. If it does not, then I would be willing to drop any presumptions thereto after a careful examination of the position of the SDA from the Bible.

@shahan,

shahan:
I got out of the SDA ear-itches years ago and I'm not about patronizing their heresies just now.

Just curious about that line; but would that be saying that you were a former SDA member? I'm just curious.

@babyosisi,

The one thing that keeps me coming back is the articulate manner in which you and shahan and several other Christians on the Forum present debates - so convincing that only the blind will fail to see. I'm really not surprised that people like babs787 can blab out their 787 lies about Jesus Christ and the Bible, while failing to see how they end up denying their own Qur'an and ridiculing their own *allah*!

Well done shahan for that articulate response to blabs787 (yes, blabs-787) confusion.

@nuru,

Can I ask you this: how "constructive" a dialogue or engagement is it for the Jews to read from Muhammad's lips that they are rats, apes, pigs and swines? How positive is that? If you insist it actually was constructive and positive, how would you feel today if a Jew was to say that Muhammad was a rat, an ape, a pig and a swine?

The disrespect you see in others that you fail to see in your own prophet is a bit "constructive", to say the least! Do you connect the dots now? The point is, if the Jews and others rejected Muhammad as a prophet who tried to impose himself on them with heretical claims, why retaliate with violence and warfare on them just for that rejection?

Allah says in the Quran "This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed my favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion" (Quran Ch 5 Vs 4).

Well, if the religion of Muhammad was actually perfected at the time he received that "revelation", how come the same Muhammad was not sure which verses should be established in the Qur'an and which should be "abrogated"??

Qur'an 16 vs 101
"When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not.

But the truth about who is a forger becomes clear from the Hadith that exposes the fraud:

Sahih Bukhari, Book 60: Volume 6, Book 60, Number 34:
Narrated Salama:
When the Divine Revelation:
"For those who can fast, they had a choice either fast, or feed a poor for every day," (2.184) was revealed, it was permissible for one to give a ransom and give up fasting, till the Verse succeeding it was revealed and abrogated it.

It just doesn't make any sense to pretend these verses in the real scheme of things. And yet, we have heard many times how some Muslims brag about the changes in the Bible but the unity of the Qur'an which has never been changed! Indeed, the Qur'anic verses have been altered and what is left now is a revised edition that differs from the original one that Muhammad claimed he received from Allah.

@belloti,

As for tolerance, I admire you calmness in many instances on the Forum. What you don't seem to understand is that Muslims can make statements (even very derogatory ones) publicly against Christians, Christianity and in some instances Jesus Himself - and they justify it as the Islamic tolerance towards others. But when anyone else says anything about Islam or try to quote the Quran and Hadith, the so-called tolerance you offer here disappears and something else takes place.

Only 20 years, in contrast to more than 20 centuries that Mary hasn't become the 4th God?

How about this for size - Allah and his three daughter goddesses that plague Islam's polytheism from the very start when the Qur'an was "revealed"??

@belloti,

In just the same way and even more, the religion of Islam doesn't make sense at all to many of us - speaking for ourselves!

@jerrymania,

I thought you were calling for a stop to the jargon and lenghty explanation - but you just posted on yourself! Na wah!  

There are some issues I might have with your stand "with authority":

jerrymania:
But think about it, Is religion not a human invent? and who first called the apostles and disciples of Christ christians? read your bible and you'll find out that they didnt label themselves christians, it's from the romans and jews who saw the disciples as following the doctrines of Christ.

Well, from what I've read in the Bible, they may not have categorical used the name "Christian(s)" for themselves, but then they actually recognized and welcomed it with delight. See the following:

Act 26:28-29 >> "Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian. And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds."

Was Paul not desiring that Agrippa should be as what the apostle was - a Christian??

I Pet. 4:16 - "Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf."

Was the apostle Peter not acknowledging that the name "Christian" should be something with which to glorify God, rather than being ashamed of it?

James 2:7 - "Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?"

What other name were the disciples called that James referred to as "that worthy name"?

So, you see that indeed the disciples and apostles actually acknowledged that worthy name "Christian" among themselves.

jerrymania:
I'm a Christian not by religion but by creation. It's my way of life. Christianity shouldnt be regarded as a religion. That i stand by with authority.

Ehmm, I think for many others (myself included), we would rather see ourselves as being Christians by redemption, and not merely by creation. Of course, we are called a new creation in God's Word; but if it were just a matter of "creation", then every person on the face of the earth is a Christian in so far as they are also created by God.

I think the discussion has been really a blessing in mnay ways, though.

Now, @mrpataki,

You really caught my sense of humour there - and not so many people can chill out and recognise that. Okay, indeed I concede that more than anything else, Christianity is a relationship with the living God by faith in Jesus Christ.

Enjoy!

@belloti,

belloti:
The funniest quotes in christianity is the first part of the Angelus, " Hail Mary Mother of God, How can anyone say that? Mother Of God, not Mother of Jesus.

Can we rephrase that line of yours as: "The funniest quotes in Roman Catholicism is the first part of the Angelus. . ." Many times when discussing or debating issues, it helps to have a good grasp of the subject before posting an entry. Catholicism has its own traditions and should be respected as such; but they do not represent Evangelical or Protestant Christianity, as these do not consider Mary to be the mother of God. The Bible doesn't call her that at all, and the closest appellation of honour to that found in the Bible is "the mother of my Lord" which Elizabeth used in addressing Mary (Luke 1:43).

So, your idea is not to be taken as representative of "Christianity", as the saying goes for Muslims: "one muslim doesn't fit all"; or there should not have been Shiites and Sunnis at each others' throats, while the Wahhabis are trying to finish them all!

Well, thank you for your frank response; although the reality doesn't seem to be the case you pointed out. All the same, many thanks.

@All,

I've thoroughly enjoyed the discussion (rather than debate) handled from all sides to the topic, especially the comprehensive analysis of Scriptures and the various shades of possible meanings of preaching, teaching, praying, prophesying, exhorting, speaking, and usurping authority.

The distinctions in contexts of "in the churches" and "in the home" and other settings have been quite helpful; as well as pointing out the equality and differences between the sexes in ¹[/b]creation, [b]²[/b]salvation and [b]³[/b]service.[/i]

At the end of the day, I've become convinced that men and women have clearly [b]distinguished roles in both the home and in the church; and the various arguments that they are just about the same haven't been convincing at all. There again, just my summation.

Perhaps, it might be the right moment to propose these questions:

(1) For those who feel persuaded that women and men are called to do exactly the same things in the churches, can we ask why the Bible seems to have featured men more prominently than women in the various activities outlined in Scripture?

(2) For those who recognise a distinction of roles in the church between the sexes, can we ask what kind of activites women can actually be involved with in the church?

Thank you and may God bless you all.

Hi @belloti,

Another question: what really is the Islamic position on women praying in the mosques with men according to the Qur'an and the Hadith? Are women to pray with men, or they are not to attend prayer in mosques?

Thanks.

Created all things - except Himself.

Lol. . . righty-O, buddy.
It's the encounter that matters actually.

So, erm. . . should we let the originator know that Christianity include these 3 things:

# Religion

# Relationship

# Encounter

@muske,

You should realise that your references are liberal quotes trying to deny Biblical texts. As shahan has eruditely shown, the claim of your scholars that "The Bible does not give us a doctrine of a trinity," has been debunked. If you assume someone is lying to you, then it is not real Christians who know their Bibles but the very "scholars" who sell you the misguided quotes you post without verifying their claims from the Bible itself.

This pretentious exercise of ferreting Biblical denials from so-called "scholars" works both ways, and I'm sure that anyone can use it effectively against Islam. For example, I could as well quote tons of Wahhabi creed to "prove" how Islam works against itself - and anyone could buy the ideas put forth if they don't check out the facts first from the Qur'an itself.

I think you should first verify your claims from the Bible itself before you run away with so-called quotes that attempt to deny something taught in the Bible when it is there with solid proof. The case of I John 5:7 is just one such example that conclusively shows your quotes to be false. The Bible indeed gives us the doctrine of the Trinity long before these liberal "scholars" came along in their attempt to deny the obvious.

Looking at the "Tri-murti" again shows that it has no foundation, and the claim is as empty as what has been shown above. Notice that the 'scholars' who claim that "modern Christian trinitarian beliefs were not formulated until about 300 years after the death of Jesus Christ," are the very same ones trying to claim that the Trinity concepts predated Christianity! These guys really don't have a leg to stand on, and by pushing their idea, you're defeating your own arguments by pandering to such false claims.

If you really want the truth, then there's just one question to ask: "muske, have you actually read the Bible for yourself to verify the claims that you're quoting?" I hope you first take the challenge to read the Bible with an open heart and mind, and then you'll see how weak are your claims.

Blessings.

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic. Just that I was more inclined to believe that it is alright to see Christianity as a religion in some wider circle of discussion, like in a social context as people use the term for other purposes.

Although, I'd again admit that in the Christian context it is more of a relationship than anything else.

So, give or take, Christianity is both a relationship and a religion.

@Bobbyaf,

I thought we finished nicely and I wished you blessings in another thread, but since you have decided to be the pugnacious SDA cultist on the Forum, bring it on. If a word of wisdom is not enough and you feel it is your forte to be this beggarly, let's see you carry the proof of just how belligerent SDA cultists are.

Erm. . . I have a question that's left me scratching my head for a while:

A few months back when I was applying for a job, there was a blank space on the form requesting me to indicate my religion. So, I filled in "Christianity". My question is: have I committed a sin for filling that blank like that?

I wonder if they would have given me the job if I had put in "Relationship" instead of "Christianity". . . or better still they would have called an ambulance for me?

I'm just wondering. Any answers??

@Bobbyaf,

I thought you'd grow up like a man and move on from these petty stuff. Wetin happen?? Can't you let a matter rest and move on gracefully, instead of sweating it out to prove the obvious? I have also met many, many SDA members who are very pugnacious; and your efforts are just confirming that all the more.

Leave all this yanga and be a man and let's get on with more constructive entries on the Forum!

@4get_me,
Point made - leave him to keep up with whatever is his worry. Shahan's advice should just be fitting here; she has gracefully moved on and left the rest to the Lord to deal with. Peace brother, and God bless!

@Donzman,

Hi. Can I ask if you have a suggestion for who the other author besides Luke might be?

Second, when you compare both texts already quoted, then you can't fail to miss the flow of the authorship. This is all the more buttressed by the clause in Acts 1:1 - "The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus. . ." One therefore should ask what the former treatise points to - and it most certainly points to the Gospel of Luke.

Third, Biblical scholars have well established the authorship of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts as the same person. If two different people have been writing to Theophilus, where is the former treatise that the second author penned?

In all, I would like to see your own suggestion about who the second or other author is, according to the logic that appeals to you.

Blessings.

@mihai,

You've added to my understanding, for which I register my thanks. Here's a little help on your small enquiry:

mihai:
@ Luke
Very interesting passages, but you still have to read through the entire passages to fully understand. That aside for a while. I seriously did not know that Acts was written by Luke. Not as a challenge, but could you please send me a link or reference as to where you got that from? I mean, if I were asked where I got that Luke was the author of the Acts, I really wouldn't want to answer that I read it on a thread at Nairaland.com; doesn't really sound convincing

I'm persuaded that Luke is the author of both the Gospel of Luke and Acts. The Gospel begins with the following address:

"It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus" [Luke 1:3].

Then Acts opens with:

"The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach" [Acts 1:1].

So, you see that Acts is a continuation of Luke's Gospel being addressed to the same recipient - "most excellent Theophilus." Today, both documents have the inprint of God's inspiration on them to be part of the Scriptures.

Blessings.

***clears throat***

Ahheem!!

@WeslayanA,

I will not pretend knowledge that I don't yet have; however, the one funny thing I find people always doing is that they quote Judaistic laws to buttress their arguments against Christianity. There is no such law as Deut.22:29 passed onto Christians in the NT, and perhaps the reason for this is found in I Tim. 1:8-11 -

"⁸But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; ⁹Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, ¹⁰For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind (homosexuals), for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; ¹¹According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust."

I believe that the OT helps us understand where we are coming from so that we can better appreciate the New Covenant in Jesus Christ. Unless anyone can successfully prove that Christians are under the Mosaic Law when the Bible clearly says we are NOT, then it makes me wonder why people want to hold Christians accountable to what God doesn't hold them accountable to.

Indeed, there are so many young people who have rare gifts of insight - and though I, for one, may not agree with their ideas or persuasions, it really won't hurt to acknowledge the scholarship and insight of such rare minds. I think I've come a long way to changing some of my previously held concepts (and may I add, biases) after having been exposed to a wider sphere to see things first hand. But when it comes to faith, I always go by what the Bible says than what opinions people express - and there again, I should not expect everyone to accept my views; for afterall, they're just mine.

Blessings.